NewStats: 3,263,400 , 8,180,001 topics. Date: Thursday, 05 June 2025 at 06:47 PM 2uff

Gabrielshow24:


It seems like a logical proposition but if you consider the effects of the tree of Life as mentioned in the bible which grants immortality. Then if truly they had eaten of it then they would be no need for modern medicine!
And Christ would have had no need to die.
Which means if your proposition is to be valid then the tree doesn't grant immortality at all!! but rather more like a supplement that aids you for meantime(temporal ) hence the tree they ate falls short of the description of the tree that grants eternal life as a consequence it would be fair to state the "tree was no different from the present trees we have now, which only sustain life" which now implies that if it sustains life and doesn't grant life then why would God have need to block them from eating?

No, please answer my 5 questions, and I'll even do more exposures.

As I said in an earlier post. There were two trees that had the capacity to cancel each other.

1. The tree of life can cancel the tree of death. That's why God didn't want them to go back and eat it after eating the tree of death. (For illustration sake, I choose to call to forbidden tree the tree of death so accentuate the death that came with it).

2. The tree of death can cancel the tree of life. That's why we are where we are today. In its absence we need doctors and medicines. We must grow old and return to dust. Adam didn't need all these before eating the forbidden fruit.

FxMasterz:

Please quote the scriptures that say the tree was denied man in the BEGINNING. Emphasis on 'Beginning'

Everything in Genesis was literal my friend. There was not death in the very beginning. They only had life. Death came by the forbidden fruit they ate and was announced by the curse, "...to dust shalt thou return."

There was no death, that's why God said, "On the day you eat of it, you will die." Death entered the world after they ate. It was not instant death. It was gradual death through body degradation.

Now, let me ask you another question. If God didn't create man to be immortal, that means He intended that man would live and die some day. That's your position, isn't it? Then what was the tree of life doing in the garden? It negates God's intention. Doesn't it? God created mortal man because it was His will for man to die, then, He put a tree of life in the garden, which runs contrary to His will mortality. Does that sound logical to you? I'm trying to break things down and not rush you as I've been doing.

Now, please follow me:

Man was originally created to be immortal. He was ed by the tree of life - probably for a particular form of nourishment for the body initially. It probably drives away weaknesses and rejuvenates strength. In Revelation, the tree of life is said to beast 12 different kinds of fruits. That's instructive.

Now, if man was created mortal, why is it that up till now, it is impossible for man to be completely annihilated? He can only translate - whether to heaven or hell. Not annihilate. Man cannot be completely annihilated, I suppose you believe that too. If that's the case, where would man be translated to after death in the beginning since God never promised heaven or hell to Adam and Eve?

Man does not die, he only translates. Translation was not necessary until sin came. "...to dust shalt thou return" was an addition. It was not not originally part of man's creation.


The forbidden tree terminated life. They had the ability to terminate each other. If Adam had quickly eaten of that tree of life after eating the forbidden tree, death would have been terminated. The reason why God would not allow them to terminate the death that they acquired was because their body was now prone to evil. Evil beings prone to crime, sicknesses, pains, etc and living forever portends a danger. God in Hjd Wisdom had to keep them in a dying state, redeem their spirit later, give them a new body after shedding off the faulty old one, and then restore their Immortality.



That statement was necessary because they have now invited death, and the eating of the tree of life is the only thing that could terminate death even as the eating of the forbidden tree had terminated life.

Everything in Genesis wasn't literal.
These are the kind of misleading statements you make.

Man does not die - this is also misleading, I could end saying "Jesus didn't die he only translated" but this negates the emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Probably you don't know how to choose words to represent your idea correctly.

Your analogies are flawed is just like saying The U.S. created F18's to fly forever when everyone knows they require refuelling! The idea of immortality is that you don't require sustenance because you are already sustained. Because man was sustained of God doesn't mean he was immortal of his own accord he could do nothing! The point is that it will become a thing of renown if the U.S. are able to create planes that never have to refuel again!!!

But it doesn't mean that as long as they are not being refueled that they won't fly forever (exaggeration) but of the inherent nature of them to fly forever without refueling that is false!

Hence man is not immortal he is sustained of God hence as a consequence he is immortal; that's why when that sustenance was removed men began to die! If truly they were immortal in the first place they won't have died!

Hope you now understand
Once again proper understanding is key!

Gabrielshow24:

But you have alluded to the matter twice and saying that I was in error for thinking that God and man can marry. Meanwhile I was not even particular about the marriage. I was talking about the position God has put believers. A position not given to angels.

You know, the beginning of these things is that I said Man was an improvement on angels. I never said man was superior to angels. Improvement does not imply superiority but you immediately saw it as superiority.

Gabrielshow24:


Everything in Genesis wasn't literal.
These are the kind of misleading statements you make.

Man does not die - this is also misleading, I could end saying "Jesus didn't die he only translated" but this negates the emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Probably you don't know how to choose words to represent your idea correctly.

Your analogies are flawed is just like saying The U.S. created F18's to fly forever when everyone knows they require refuelling! The idea of immortality is that you don't require sustenance because you are already sustained. Because man was sustained of God doesn't mean he was immortal of his own accord he could do nothing! The point is that it will become a thing of renown if the U.S. are able to create planes that never have to refuel again!!!

But it doesn't mean that as long as they are not being refueled that they won't fly forever (exaggeration) but of the inherent nature of them to fly forever without refueling that is false!

Hence man is not immortal he is sustained of God hence as a consequence he is immortal; that's why when that sustenance was removed men began to die! If truly they were immortal in the first place they won't have died!

Hope you now understand
Once again proper understanding is key!

My dear, they were all literal except probably the serpent symbolism which is still being debated.

Every other things about the trees, the creation, the naming of animals, etc were all literal. The tree of life wasn't a spiritual tree. It was a real tree.

Proof:

1. God has to chase man away from the garden because of it. Was the garden a spiritual garden? No!

2. Angels with flaming swords guarded the way to that tree. Was the way to the tree a spiritual way?


The tree of life is currently a spiritual tree to us after we lost it in Eden. But in the world to come, it would be a physical tree bearing 12 different kinds of fruits. A fruit for each month. That's a literal tree my dear friend.

Man was immortal before he became mortal my dear friend. That tree was man's literal food my friend. Not a spiritually implied food.

Christ died. In Bus death He was translated to hell. He didn't cease to exist. He conquered death and received the keys of hell and death. Returned back to earth to announce the victory. Went back to heaven to await the period of full restoration.

FxMasterz:


No, please answer my 5 questions, and I'll even do more exposures.

As I said in an earlier post. There were two trees that had the capacity to cancel each other.

1. The tree of life can cancel the tree of death. That's why God didn't want them to go back and eat it after eating the tree of death. (For illustration sake, I choose to call to forbidden tree the tree of death so accentuate the death that came with it).

2. The tree of death can cancel the tree of life. That's why we are where we are today. In its absence we need doctors and medicines. We must grow old and return to dust. Adam didn't need all these before eating the forbidden fruit.

At this point it's becoming tiring going over and over simple things that are not hard at all!
Who doesn't know that Man cannot survive without Oxygen? As long as you breathe in oxygen(all things being equal) you will live! But the simple lack/depletion of it and your body reacts. This brings about a codependent system between Man and oxygen(exaggerated). As long as man is where there is Oxygen he hath life which is buttressed in the bible age "you have life in me"

Simple wisdom makes you to see that as long as God is with Man he hath life which is evidenced in Revelation; of God living, walking amidst us without the need of a Sun etc. instead our dependence is now on God as the sustainer of our lives and as the source of light!

Which was what it should have been from the beginning of the World - Submission unto God!
And scriptures says "as many as are led of God are called the sons of God"

The knowledge brought death as a metaphor! As evidenced by the serpent "saying you won't really die" but this is also a snide remark aimed to cloud and present an half-truth(lie) before them- as it is well document that the absence of life is simply put death

Like I said in my previous write-ups.
It was a trade off between gaining physical enlightenment and losing divine inspiration!
From God's perspective that is death because you are not in his abode and not dependent on his light to see.

That's why Jesus could boldly say "let the dead bury the dead" and "blind man leading a blind man will both fall into a ditch"

FxMasterz:


My dear, they were all literal except probably the serpent symbolism which is still being debated.

Every other things about the trees, the creation, the naming of animals, etc were all literal. The tree of life wasn't a spiritual tree. It was a real tree.

Proof:

1. God has to chase man away from the garden because of it. Was the garden a spiritual garden? No!

2. Angels with flaming swords guarded the way to that tree. Was the way to the tree a spiritual way?


The tree of life is currently a spiritual tree to us after we lost it in Eden. But in the world to come, it would be a physical tree bearing 12 different kinds of fruits. A fruit for each month. That's a literal tree my dear friend.

Man was immortal before he became mortal my dear friend. That tree was man's literal food my friend. Not a spiritually implied food.

Christ died. In Bus death He was translated to hell. He didn't cease to exist. He conquered death and received the keys of hell and death. Returned back to earth to announce the victory. Went back to heaven to await the period of full restoration.

Don't you know that you pointing out here "except probably the serpent's symbolism" defeats your initial statement: "Everything in Genesis is literal"

I don't think you know logic at all.
A simple contradiction defeats the existentialism or correctness of a statement

You pointing out again that Christ died:
Defeats your statement that "Man doesn't die"

What's your problem?
Is it your choice of words or what?

Going to the issue at hand Genesis 1 explains that God created heaven and Earth in seven days, Genesis 2 adds "that God caused a mist to water the ground because man was not yet created to till the ground" just from these two chapters you can easily see that whatsoever that transpires in 1 was not a physical creation and it is the generally accepted interpretation that chapter 1 represents the spiritual creation of all things and chapter 2 starts with the physical processes involved!

🤔Study more and be enlightened

Gabrielshow24:


At this point it's becoming tiring going over and over simple things that are not hard at all!
Who doesn't know that Man cannot survive without Oxygen? As long as you breathe in oxygen(all things being equal) you will live! But the simple lack/depletion of it and your body reacts. This brings about a codependent system between Man and oxygen(exaggerated). As long as man is where there is Oxygen he hath life which is buttressed in the bible age "you have life in me"

Simple wisdom makes you to see that as long as God is with Man he hath life which is evidenced in Revelation; of God living, walking amidst us without the need of a Sun etc. instead our dependence is now on God as the sustainer of our lives and as the source of light!

No from the bolded which you said above. If man has life as long as God was with him as it was in the beginning, what would now bring the man death if God continues to be with him ?

I really need this answer with urgency since you said man was not immortal.

Which was what it should have been from the beginning of the World - Submission unto God!
And scriptures says "as many as are led of God are called the sons of God"

The knowledge brought death as a metaphor! As evidenced by the serpent "saying you won't really die" but this is also a snide remark aimed to cloud and present an half-truth(lie) before them- as it is well document that the absence of life is simply put death

Like I said in my previous write-ups.
It was a trade off between gaining physical enlightenment and losing divine inspiration!
From God's perspective that is death because you are not in his abode and not dependent on his light to see.

That's why Jesus could boldly say "let the dead bury the dead" and "blind man leading a blind man will both fall into a ditch"

Death is not a metaphor. It is real. It is in the world today. God didn't mean instant death. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was not snipper. It terminated life. It took away the capacity of man to be immortal. Christ has come to restore that which we lost.

Please answer the question I asked you in section 1 as related to the bolded part of your statement.

FxMasterz:

Can you provide instances in the US?

Have you watched a movie by Evangel Films? It's titled Life for Life. You'll understand the law and his it relates to Jesus laying down His life much better.

Now, as you said, the law is already stated, and it's at the DISCRETION OF THE LAW to uphold the law letter by letter and word for word. Then, it's at the discretion of the law too to allow someone to substitute himself for the crime of another.

This is called substitutionary punishment in law. It happens even though early. When it happens, It is made permissible under strict conditions. That's why the conditions where Christ was made our substitute are actually really strict. This happened because man cannot sufficiently pay the penalty for his own sins.



As I've explained above, that's how things are from God's perspective. God gave Jesus the liberty to offer Himself as a substitute for man because man cannot sufficiently pay for his own sins. This substitutionary punishment Christ took upon Himself was well expounded in the book of Hebrews where the writer detailed the legality of that action from chapter to chapter.

I just saw this I am pretty disappointed!

Where in the U.S do they uphold penal substitution punishment?

And when you wanted to cite an example you are citing life for life by Evangel films( a movie)

My God that example was to bring out a flaw in your thought process that an high intellectual can likewise say that based on moral and ethical judgements you cannot die for my sins and as an induction likewise say Jesus didn't die for any one's sins

I know, like I said in that write up you quoted that Jesus died for my sin and absolved me of it!

You just make statements as if you are presenting them to low IQ personalities.

Your analogies tend to have slight incoherence.

FxMasterz:

No from the bolded which you said above. If man has life as long as God was with him as it was in the beginning, what would now bring the man death if God continues to be with him ?

I really need this answer with urgency since you said man was not immortal.



Death is not a metaphor. It is real. It is in the world today. God didn't mean instant death. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was not snipper. It terminated life. It took away the capacity of man to be immortal. Christ has come to restore that which we lost.

Please answer the question I asked you in section 1 as related to the bolded part of your statement.

Is the answer not in the write up?
They were separated from God! And separation brings death, blindness, sickness etc

Even now so, God has healed many of incurable diseases after believing in him to confirm and to show that these things(diseases) do not hold in God.

But as regards death, a few have escaped death, and in the bible it was shown that they escaped death through fellowship with God. The bible records of Enoch; He walked with and was not and Elijah being whisked away on a chariot of fire!

Now whether most men have attained(will attain) the level of fellowship that will make God take them Alive is another matter?

How you have so forgotten of the disciple(John) that others thought would not die? Because Jesus said if he(Jesus) wills he could make him stay till the end of the world. Emphasis on "If he wills"

In the same vein when Jesus was on earth when he was a carpenter; he ate in the brow of his sweat! It didn't diminish what was said in Genesis

The idea is not of the temporal life but of the eternal life that comes with fellowship with God!

I think my next phrase implied that death was real "through the remark of half-truth".

FxMasterz:


But you have alluded to the matter twice and saying that I was in error for thinking that God and man can marry. Meanwhile I was not even particular about the marriage. I was talking about the position God has put believers. A position not given to angels.

You know, the beginning of these things is that I said Man was an improvement on angels. I never said man was superior to angels. Improvement does not imply superiority but you immediately saw it as superiority.

Bring it out where I ever said God and man cannot marry!


Why with these lies?
You said in Heaven man will be rulers; angels will be servants!

Why expose your own folly?

MindHacker9009:


And by you extremely limited logic you believe many of his creation did not hear about him being born of Mary till their nations were conquered and this your limited logic was force on many to believe two thousand years later.

If you find it this hard to believe the virgin Mary became pregnant by God's power and gave birth to the Savior Jesus then, it is grossly and extremely stupid of you to have believed in the first place that there is a God of the Torah.
Stop displaying stupidity to prove smart.

Tetraozonaitera:

If you find it this hard to believe the virgin Mary became pregnant by God's power and gave birth to the Savior Jesus then, it is grossly and extremely stupid of you to have believed in the first place that there is a God of the Torah.
Stop displaying stupidity to prove smart.

Same or another f00lish scammer, falsely claiming to believe this primitive scam of the virgin birth to scam the gullible ones.

MindHacker9009:


Same or another f00lish scammer, falsely claiming to believe this primitive scam of the virgin birth to scam the gullible ones.

What I am practically saying is you are Stupid.
A great fool to believe that there is a God but you find it hard that that same God is powerful enough to make someone pregnant without having an intercourse .

Why then is He God if that simple act is impossible for Him?

Omo, you are a GREAT FOOL!

PERIOD!

The foolish atheist is smarter than you. At least, he doesn't kukuma believe there is a God. So, not believing in a God performing such a miracle wont be strange.

But here you are, you believe in the God of Torah like you said, but you find it hard to believe the same God of Torah can make a virgin pregnant. When the same God in Torah asked; "Is there anything too hard for me to do?"

YOU ARE A FOOL

A VERY BIG FOOL. Answering you is baseless. You are not smart.

MindHacker9009:


Same or another f00lish scammer, falsely claiming to believe this primitive scam of the virgin birth to scam the gullible ones.

He makes a good point why do you believe that Moses splitted the red sea? Where some scientists believe it was the "Sea of Reeds"?

Also why do you believe that God rained down brimstones from Sodom and Gomorrah? Where that can be easily explained as a volcanic eruption? - at it was in the case of Pompeii

Why do you believe this things that look far fetched? Like for instance pillar of salt, pillar of Fire, pillar of cloud.

So you believe in the Power of God but you render that power impotent when it comes to the virgin birth?

If in nature it is prevalent in komodo dragons?

But you prefer to believe an old man substituted stick for Iron!

You are indeed wise!

Gabrielshow24:


It's Kafkaesque to you because you can't comprehend the hidden aspects of salvation!
You use physical means to solve physical problems but how do you solve spiritual ones?


Doctors in general use Medical tools for surgery. You don't see doctors use lawnmower they can as well borrow some tools from other professions. At least there are uses for hammer in the medical field but none for lawnmowers.

At the end of the day it's all about solving the problem of sin permanently, sin against God is going against his will but when you are in line with his will then there is no sin!

How then can you always be inline with God?
You must be led of God!

Lol! i'ld like to see you do without something as 'minor' as saliva, sweat or urine and then see how sustained your life would be. Besides is blood the only "major fluid that sustains life"? Or is it the only "major fluid that sustains life" that they could see and attach sentimental importance to, from left over practices of cultic rituals from their polytheistic days, which btw was also borrowed from other older surrounding cultures in the ANE. What about lymphatic, cerebrospinal and pleural fluids or even plasma?! Or those don't sustain life? Basically its the bolded, no matter the spin you put on it.

So at the end of day, the many analogies and stories leads to 'Yes' the plan failed ergo the unwinding explanations to justify it's outright failure, according to the mythical story anyway, cause its nothing more than myth. Isn't it laughable then that you have to make excuses for a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, being by comparing it to a presupposed flawed human, who if i correctly, were created 'perfect'. Suddenly there's no guarantee he can create something perfect anymore?! Oh my! So much plot holes in this story of fiction, with lots of presuppositions to make up for the glaring plot holes. Its kind of funny.

"It's Kafkaesque to you because you can't comprehend the hidden aspects of salvation!" Somehow, something that requires the least common denominator of acceptance(talking abt belief btw) which is applicable to the most basic of persons suddenly has supposedly hidden nuances that require 'special comprehension'. Lol! It's no surprise then, that you guys cant even agree on what your texts say or which particular texts to even use, across your ever increasing no of denominations despite claims of inspiration from above.

For a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being that sees the end from the beginning, your god sucks at making plans.

Lucifyre:


Lol! i'ld like to see you do without something as 'minor' as saliva, sweat or urine and then see how sustained your life would be. Besides is blood the only "major fluid that sustains life"? Or is it the only "major fluid that sustains life" that they could see and attach sentimental importance to, from left over practices of cultic rituals from their polytheistic days, which btw was also borrowed from other older surrounding cultures in the ANE. What about lymphatic, cerebrospinal and pleural fluids or even plasma?! Or those don't sustain life? Basically its the bolded, no matter the spin you put on it.

So at the end of day, the many analogies and stories leads to 'Yes' the plan failed ergo the unwinding explanations to justify it's outright failure, according to the mythical story anyway, cause its nothing more than myth. Isn't it laughable then that you have to make excuses for a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, being by comparing it to a presupposed flawed human, who if i correctly, were created 'perfect'. Suddenly there's no guarantee he can create something perfect anymore?! Oh my! So much plot holes in this story of fiction, with lots of presuppositions to make up for the glaring plot holes. Its kind of funny.

"It's Kafkaesque to you because you can't comprehend the hidden aspects of salvation!" Somehow, something that requires the least common denominator of acceptance(talking abt belief btw) which is applicable to the most basic of persons suddenly has supposedly hidden nuances that require 'special comprehension'. Lol! It's no surprise then, that you guys cant even agree on what your texts say or which particular texts to even use, across your ever increasing no of denominations despite claims of inspiration from above.

For a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being that sees the end from the beginning, your god sucks at making plans.

Your logic is flawed!
Why do men protect their heads and wear breastplates armor during wars?

It doesn't mean you can't live on with a loss of limb or lack of cerebrospinal fluid, or lack of saliva but you might not live well.

But once your head is caught off do you survive much longer?

Or perhaps your heart stops?
What use is to you, Your hands and legs!

Hence if the blood is drained from the man he dies quickly than when saliva and urine is taking out!

A child will tell you that the life of a man is in his blood but we know with modern science that other fluids play minor roles; which makes the body an interconnected system with major and minor subsystems!

Tetraozonaitera:
.

You started your f00lishness and stupidity as DaddyCoool, then Gabrielshow24, now Tetraozonaitera

God of the Torah did not mate with Mary to produce Himself and then offer Himself on the cross to Himself as a sacrifice. You are a very stupid scammer using the virgin birth scam to scam the gullible ones.

Since your god of your invented Jesus christ can mate with Mary to produce himself, then your God of your Jesus christ was the one that sent Mohammed yet you don't want to accept Mohammed as the massager of your God of Jesus christ. This shows how f00lish your are.

You ran away from this before. Here is it again for you:

The Jews know very well that your invented Jesus christ is not their Messiah God will send because the Jews know and understand the Old Testament or their Torah very well. Same way Christians are saying Mohammed is not a prophet from the God of their Jesus christ because the Christians know and understand their New Testament very well.
1. Muslims are saying Jews and Christians are not following the prophet of Allah who to them is the true God of Abraham.
2. Christians are saying Jews and Muslims are not following Jesus christ and the God of Jesus who to them is the true God of Abraham.
3. Jews are saying Christians and Muslims are not following their God who is the true God of Abraham.
This is because Christianity and Islam came after and they were invented as political tools to control the people till today.

Tetraozonaitera:


What I am practically saying is you are Stupid.
A great fool to believe that there is a God but you find it hard that that same God is powerful enough to make someone pregnant without having an intercourse .

Why then is He God if that simple act is impossible for Him?

Omo, you are a GREAT FOOL!

PERIOD!

The foolish atheist is smarter than you. At least, he doesn't kukuma believe there is a God. So, not believing in a God performing such a miracle wont be strange.

But here you are, you believe in the God of Torah like you said, but you find it hard to believe the same God of Torah can make a virgin pregnant.

YOU ARE A FOOL

A VERY BIG FOOL. Answering you is baseless. You are not smart.

Lucifyre:


Lol! i'ld like to see you do without something as 'minor' as saliva, sweat or urine and then see how sustained your life would be. Besides is blood the only "major fluid that sustains life"? Or is it the only "major fluid that sustains life" that they could see and attach sentimental importance to, from left over practices of cultic rituals from their polytheistic days, which btw was also borrowed from other older surrounding cultures in the ANE. What about lymphatic, cerebrospinal and pleural fluids or even plasma?! Or those don't sustain life? Basically its the bolded, no matter the spin you put on it.

So at the end of day, the many analogies and stories leads to 'Yes' the plan failed ergo the unwinding explanations to justify it's outright failure, according to the mythical story anyway, cause its nothing more than myth. Isn't it laughable then that you have to make excuses for a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, being by comparing it to a presupposed flawed human, who if i correctly, were created 'perfect'. Suddenly there's no guarantee he can create something perfect anymore?! Oh my! So much plot holes in this story of fiction, with lots of presuppositions to make up for the glaring plot holes. Its kind of funny.

"It's Kafkaesque to you because you can't comprehend the hidden aspects of salvation!" Somehow, something that requires the least common denominator of acceptance(talking abt belief btw) which is applicable to the most basic of persons suddenly has supposedly hidden nuances that require 'special comprehension'. Lol! It's no surprise then, that you guys cant even agree on what your texts say or which particular texts to even use, across your ever increasing no of denominations despite claims of inspiration from above.

For a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being that sees the end from the beginning, your god sucks at making plans.

Your write up doesn't take into the agency of Choice!
It doesn't matter the care and finesse put into a Tesla cyber truck when the driver sends it to the lagoon.

Or don't you see how "beautiful" destruction is when human agency comes into play?

As long as there is free will there would be errors and problems and that's why God prepared from the beginning the "lamb of sacrifice" a lot will say "I want to find my own way but that self same way could lead them under the bridge"

God's not against your choice, you will use your hands to choose either life or death.

gohf:
because your life is not in saliva, sweat nor urine.

If you are asking about the flood, the question is did that look to you in anyway as a plan to save man? It was clearly God's display of anger. God wasn't starting afresh, Noah found favor and was spared. How is that starting afresh. Starting afresh by telling them they could now eat meat? Are you being serious?!

Are you not being pathetic by referring to it as impatient of a little child?

How old are you? How you ever been patient with someone who annoyed you more than a year, wait scratch that, a month without reacting?

Sorry not a month, just this post, can you be patient enough before getting impatient and anger.

Before you judge something try to check if you actually better.

By the way patiently tells us some of the "several examples" of God's word being nullified.

And how is my 'life in blood'? cause without any of the fluids, you die. So the flood wasn't to start afresh, my bad. It was according to you "God's display of anger" Oh so like an impatient narcissistic little child throwing a tantrum afterall. He supposedly gave them freewill and then was pissed off with what they did with it?! lol! Despite knowing the end from the beginning. That was part of the master plan right. Funny your subconscious agrees with me, with you referring to your god as it cause that's the most fitting description. 😁 What's even more funny is comparing a human to a supposed divine being where the human is supposedly inferior in order to justify shortcomings of said being. That's what i call... em what's the word again 'Pathetic'. As for the examples you requested of his word being nullified, they're actually so many its funny but i expect mental gymnastics as usual. How many of the commandments God gave in the Tanakh, do you follow?! If that's not nullification, i don't know what is.

MindHacker9009:


You started your f00lishness and stupidity as DaddyCoool, then Gabrielshow24, now Tetraozonaitera

God of the Torah did not mate with Mary to produce Himself and then offer Himself on the cross to Himself as a sacrifice. You are a very stupid scammer using the virgin birth scam to scam the gullible ones.

Since your god of your invented Jesus christ can mate with Mary to produce himself, then your God of your Jesus christ was the one that sent Mohammed yet you don't want to accept Mohammed as the massager of your God of Jesus christ. This shows how f00lish your are.

You ran away from this before. Here is it again for you:

The Jews know very well that your invented Jesus christ is not their Messiah God will send because the Jews know and understand the Old Testament or their Torah very well. Same way Christians are saying Mohammed is not a prophet from the God of their Jesus christ because the Christians know and understand their New Testament very well.
1. Muslims are saying Jews and Christians are not following the prophet of Allah who to them is the true God of Abraham.
2. Christians are saying Jews and Muslims are not following Jesus christ and the God of Jesus who to them is the true God of Abraham.
3. Jews are saying Christians and Muslims are not following their God who is the true God of Abraham.
This is because Christianity and Islam came after and they were invented as political tools to control the people till today.

That's where you exhibit your foolishness.

If I may ask how did the first life come into existence?

At least by observation we can say cell multiply then how did the original cell come to be?

If the original cell came to be without requiring the processes we have become use to what does this say about your logic?

This is one of the hard aspect of the origin of life which has stumped high intellectual minds!

That's why we have questions such as which came first chicken or the egg?

You think God will stoop so low to mate with his creation (Mary) .

Even in nature the occurrence of immaculate conception is available in the form of komodo dragons.

What's your problem?

Why should I accept Muhammad when logic tells me that his fruits(characters) are not in line with who he says he is?

A pedophile, war monger and adulterer!
Covered his sins in the guise of revelations!

As a take home assignment
Did Adam have a belly button?

Gabrielshow24:


That's where you exhibit your foolishness.

If I may ask how did the first life come into existence?

At least by observation we can say cell multiply then how did the original cell come to be?

If the original cell came to be without requiring the processes we have become use to what does this say about your logic?

This is one of the hard aspect of the origin of life which has stumped high intellectual minds!

That's why we have questions such as which came first chicken or the egg?

You think God will stoop so low to mate with his creation (Mary) .

Even in nature the occurrence of immaculate conception is available in the form of komodo dragons.

What's your problem?

Why should I accept Muhammad when logic tells me that his fruits(characters) are not in line with who he says he is?

A pedophile, war monger and adulterer!
Covered his sins in the guise of revelations!

As a take home assignment
Did Adam have a belly button?

Dindinrin

I dont bear those monikers


E pain you die you quoted me with same thing twice

Gabrielshow24:


That's where you exhibit your foolishness.

If I may ask how did the first life come into existence?

At least by observation we can say cell multiply then how did the original cell come to be?

If the original cell came to be without requiring the processes we have become use to what does this say about your logic?

This is one of the hard aspect of the origin of life which has stumped high intellectual minds!

That's why we have questions such as which came first chicken or the egg?

You think God will stoop so low to mate with his creation (Mary) .

Even in nature the occurrence of immaculate conception is available in the form of komodo dragons.

What's your problem?

Why should I accept Muhammad when logic tells me that his fruits(characters) are not in line with who he says he is?

A pedophile, war monger and adulterer!
Covered his sins in the guise of revelations!

As a take home assignment
Did Adam have a belly button?

Ok

Tetraozonaitera:


Dindinrin

I dont bear those monikers


E pain you die you quoted me with same thing twice

I will take this as an error, as your answer is not directed towards me perhaps you misquoted me; mistaking me for MindHacker

Gabrielshow24:


I will take this as an error, as your answer is not directed towards me perhaps you misquoted me; mistaking me for MindHacker

Sorry bro

Gabrielshow24:


Bring it out where I ever said God and man cannot marry!


Why with these lies?
You said in Heaven man will be rulers; angels will be servants!

Why expose your own folly?

You said it man. Readers can actually see that. I don't have time to rummage through posts now.

I didn't say in heaven man will be rulers, angels will be servants. I've not even talked anything about roles or positions. You're the one misinterpreting.

I said Angels are servants by their creation. Meanwhile men have been promised thrones. I didn't draw any conclusion about men ruling and angels serving men, or men ruling over angels. I just stated what the Bible says. I never drew conclusions. Both statements were made separately for different contexts.

Gabrielshow24:



Is the answer not in the write up?
They were separated from God! And separation brings death, blindness, sickness etc

Even now so, God has healed many of incurable diseases after believing in him to confirm and to show that these things(diseases) do not hold in God.

But as regards death, a few have escaped death, and in the bible it was shown that they escaped death through fellowship with God. The bible records of Enoch; He walked with and was not and Elijah being whisked away on a chariot of fire!

Now whether most men have attained(will attain) the level of fellowship that will make God take them Alive is another matter?

How you have so forgotten of the disciple(John) that others thought would not die? Because Jesus said if he(Jesus) wills he could make him stay till the end of the world. Emphasis on "If he wills"

In the same vein when Jesus was on earth when he was a carpenter; he ate in the brow of his sweat! It didn't diminish what was said in Genesis

The idea is not of the temporal life but of the eternal life that comes with fellowship with God!

I think my next phrase implied that death was real "through the remark of half-truth".

My dear, stop being confused as far as this discussion is concerned.

My stand about man's immortality has been on the pre-separation period of man. Who doesn't know that man invited death after separation from God

I said God created man to be immortal. Please own up to what you said. You refuted that claim further shot yourself in the foot by saying God's fellowship with man was the reason why man had eternal life. How then does man die? Assuming man didn't separate from God, would he still die even with God fellowshiping with him?

You've seen the error in your posts but you are refusing to it it.

Gabrielshow24:


I just saw this I am pretty disappointed!

Where in the U.S do they uphold penal substitution punishment?

Would you refer me to where I said it happens in the USA? Your penchant for misinterpretation and misrepresentation is too annoying.

I only asked you to bring proof that no one can decide to take the place of another in judgement in the US.

And when you wanted to cite an example you are citing life for life by Evangel films( a movie)

Yes because it duplicated exactly the substitute role Jesus played for us. Did the Bible not call Jesus our substitute?

My God that example was to bring out a flaw in your thought process that an high intellectual can likewise say that based on moral and ethical judgements you cannot die for my sins and as an induction likewise say Jesus didn't die for any one's sins

I know, like I said in that write up you quoted that Jesus died for my sin and absolved me of it!

You just make statements as if you are presenting them to low IQ personalities.

Your analogies tend to have slight incoherence.

You're the one who fail to easily grasp what I say or perhaps it is a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth.

In law, there's what is called Substitutionary punishment. Go and find out about that. It happens when someone decides to take the place of another who is to be sentenced.

1Peter 3:18

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God."

I have shown you previously that Christ did it voluntarily. It is permissable in law, though very rare. Man cannot pay for his sins, so Jesus gave Himself for us. If man can pay for his sins, Jesus wouldn't need to do so. It's God's prerogative of mercy to allow Jesus take our place so that we can escape unavoidable eternal damnation. The human race was doomed for lack of inability. Jesus voluntarily came to our rescue.

If you still don't understand what I've said, I do not know he else I can explain it. This is the whole Scripture.

Gabrielshow24:


Don't you know that you pointing out here "except probably the serpent's symbolism" defeats your initial statement: "Everything in Genesis is literal"

Do you want to hang on that? That's language for you. It doesn't defeat my earlier statement because it isn't out of order to call the overwhelming percentage of a thing "Everything".

I don't think you know logic at all.
A simple contradiction defeats the existentialism or correctness of a statement.

You've contradicted yourself many times. I didn't berate you for that, did I? What exactly are you all about trying to see this discussion as a fight? Please be mature.

You pointing out again that Christ died:
Defeats your statement that "Man doesn't die"

What's your problem?
Is it your choice of words or what?

That's because you don't understand the language I spoke.

What is death? A translation. Is a translation death? No.

When I'm said Christ died, I meant He translated. Then, I showed you where He translated to.

Your understanding of death is mes your whole theology. Once you realize that death is a mere translation and not an annihilation, you would then understand my language.

Going to the issue at hand Genesis 1 explains that God created heaven and Earth in seven days, Genesis 2 adds "that God caused a mist to water the ground because man was not yet created to till the ground" just from these two chapters you can easily see that whatsoever that transpires in 1 was not a physical creation and it is the generally accepted interpretation that chapter 1 represents the spiritual creation of all things and chapter 2 starts with the physical processes involved!

So, God created a spiritual world in Genesis according to your mumbo jumbo? And how does a mist watering the ground mean that man was not yet created to till the ground? When Genesis said God put the man in the garden to dress and till it. Are you saying that the mist was tilling the ground for man? Please who am I debating with? I'll like to know.

🤔Study more and be enlightened

Please take your own advice. Calm down and learn from others. You need it.

FxMasterz:


You said it man. Readers can actually see that. I don't have time to rummage through posts now.

I didn't say in heaven man will be rulers, angels will be servants. I've not even talked anything about roles or positions. You're the one misinterpreting.

I said Angels are servants by their creation. Meanwhile men have been promised thrones. I didn't draw any conclusion about men ruling and angels serving men, or men ruling over angels. I just stated what the Bible says. I never drew conclusions. Both statements were made separately for different contexts.

The picture begs to differ!
I can see you are filled with folly.

When it soothes you; you context!
But in the things you ought to use context you don't use it!

Gabrielshow24:


The picture begs to differ!
I can see you are filled with folly.

When it soothes you; you context!
But in the things you ought to use context you don't use it!

Okay, I never ed I use the words. But that is in the context of what God says about men and angels in heaven. The Bible depicts angels as servants while depicting men as sitting on thrones. I do not say that men would rule over angels while angels would be serving men. I never drew that inference. Just telling the place where God put both men and angels in heaven.

Do not think that I do not know how to abuse too. If you think you have the monopoly of abusing people, calling them foolish, stupid and again telling me "you're filled with folly", I'll deal with you accordingly from henceforth.

If you present yourself as a human, you be treated as one. If you believe like a goat, you'll be treated like a goat.

FxMasterz:

Do you want to hang on that? That's language for you. It doesn't defeat my earlier statement because it isn't out of order to call the overwhelming percentage of a thing "Everything".


You've contradicted yourself many times. I didn't berate you for that, did I? What exactly are you all about trying to see this discussion as a fight? Please be mature.


That's because you don't understand the language I spoke.

What is death? A translation. Is a translation death? No.

When I'm said Christ died, I meant He translated. Then, I showed you where He translated to.



Your understanding of death is mes your whole theology. Once you realize that death is a mere translation and not an annihilation, you would then understand my language.


So, God created a spiritual world in Genesis according to your mumbo jumbo? And how does a mist watering the ground mean that man was not yet created to till the ground? When Genesis said God put the man in the garden to dress and till it.

That was in chapter 2 do you have understanding at all?
What did I say?
The man that was already created in 1;
The plants that have also been created in 1 why then would they need a mist to sprout?

Am talking to a kid, someone with low understanding


Are you saying that the mist was tilling the ground for man? Please who am I debating with? I'll like to know.


Please take your own advice. Calm down and learn from others. You need it.

[b]Every Nigerian man is a scum! 🤔 Will hold true by this analogy. Nobody uses everything if indeed there were exceptions that's why there is "Most", "many" and " alot". You had to your problems and show the world you don't know logic at all!

Someone saying "he doesn't have a criminal record" but when a (SINGLE) case is brought up. His statement becomes invalid !

THAT'S WHY I KEEP SAYING YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS IS MISLEADING!
I UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT BUT SOMEONE NOT OF HIGHER UNDERSTANDING WILL BE EASILY MISLEAD HOW HARD IS THAT?

You said man doesn't die? When he departs from this world what is it called? I understand that temporal death isn't permanent death that's very easy but for the sake of the little ones this is very misleading course in fact your statement corroborates with Muhammad's remark of Jesus didn't die!
Which negates the spiritual emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?

I said this earlier how is this hard for you to understand?
[/b]

Gabrielshow24:


[b]Every Nigerian man is a scum! 🤔 Will hold true by this analogy. Nobody uses everything if indeed there were exceptions that's why there is "Most", "many" and " alot". You had to your problems and show the world you don't know logic at all!

Someone saying "he doesn't have a criminal record" but when a (SINGLE) case is brought up. His statement becomes invalid !

THAT'S WHY I KEEP SAYING YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS IS MISLEADING!
I UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT BUT SOMEONE NOT OF HIGHER UNDERSTANDING WILL BE EASILY MISLEAD HOW HARD IS THAT?

You said man doesn't die? When he departs from this world what is it called? I understand that temporal death isn't permanent death that's very easy but for the sake of the little ones this is very misleading course in fact your statement corroborates with Muhammad's remark of Jesus didn't die!
Which negates the spiritual emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?

I said this earlier how is this hard for you to understand?
[/b]

It's either you didn't go to school or your education was a waste. If every Nigerian man is a scum, then, you're a scum. Interestingly I'm not really Nigerian. I'll agree you are a scum!

That statement was an Hyperbole! It does not mean everything in reality but for emphasis only.